Remanded

Lakhu Sheikh v. The State Of Jhakrhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC6 Jan 2022WPC/903/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order condoning a seven-month delay in filing a revision appeal under the Minimum Wages Act. The High Court set aside the order as it was passed without notice and beyond the statutory 60-day limit, remanding the matter for a fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 13.06.2015 set aside; matter remitted to Additional Collector, Pakur for afresh consideration with compliance of Section 20(6-A).

Lakhu Sheikh Vs The State Of Jhakrhand And Ors. — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(L ) No. 903 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI [Civil Writ Jurisdiction]

¶3

Lakhu Sheikh .... .. ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .. ... ...Respondents ........... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through :- Video Conferencing) ......... For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha, Advocate For the resp.-State : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, AC to SC- III For the respondent no.3 : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate …...

¶4

11/ 06.01.2022 .

¶5

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

Learned counsel, Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh assisted by learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha has submitted that the petitioner- Lakhu Sheikh has preferred the instant writ petition against the order dated 13.06.2015 passed by the learned Additional Collector, Pakur in Rev. Misc. Appeal No.1 of 2014-15, whereby the order 19.12.2013 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Pakur, in Rev. Misc. Case No.41 of 2008-09 has been set aside by allowing the appeal of the respondent No.3.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh has submitted that the Additional Collector without issuance of notice to the petitioner (respondent therein) has condoned the delay of more than 60 days contrary to the provisions of Section 20 (6-A) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 amended vide Bihar State Amendments with effect from 30.01.1983 whereby delay cannot be condoned for more than 60 days in total.

¶8

Learned counsel, Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh assisted by learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha has submitted that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer passed in Rev. Misc. Case No.41 of 2008-09 is of dated 19.12.2013. As per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the appeal has to be preferred within 30 days and if sufficient cause is shown, further 30 days can be granted in view of Amended Provisions of Sub-Section 6-A of Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, but in the present case, the delay has been condoned of approximately seven months, which was not within the jurisdiction of the Additional Collector, as such, the impugned order is bad in law and may be set aside.

¶9

Learned counsel for the respondent no.3, Mr. Gautam Kumar has submitted that though delay has been condoned by the Additional Collector, Pakur as the appeal has been preferred before him on 10.06.2014 against the order of the S.D.O., Pakur dated 19.12.2013, but it is true that delay has been condoned without notice to

¶10

-2-

¶11

the writ petitioner, who was respondent(s) in the lower appellate court and after condonation of delay notice has been issued to the petitioner- Lakhu Sheikh and on merits the order has been rightly passed by the Additional Collector, Pakur, as such, this Hon'ble Court may not interfere with the same.

¶12

Learned counsel for the respondent-State, Mr. Rishu Ranjan, AC to SC-III has submitted that it is a matter of law, which every officer exercising quasi-judicial power must understand as the amendment has been made by the State of Bihar in Sub-Section (6) of Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 by incorporating Section 6-A on 30.01.1983 and it was incumbent upon the officer to notice a person before condonation of the delay as right has accrued in favour of the petitioner, which has not been considered by the learned Additional Collector, as such, impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded.

¶13

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur has passed an order on 19.12.2013 in Rev. Misc. Case No.41 of 2008-09. As per the impugned order dated 13.06.2015, the Rev. Misc. Appeal No.1 of 2014-15 has been filed before the Additional Collector on 10.06.2014, i.e. Admittedly, after more than 60 days of time and that too delay of approximately seven months has been condoned by the Additional Collector, Pakur without notice to the petitioner- Lakhu Sheikh, as such, impugned order dated 13.06.2015 passed by the Additional Collector, Pakur is non-sustainable in the eyes of law, which is hereby set aside.

¶14

Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition is allowed and the matter is remitted before the Additional Collector, Pakur.

¶15

Parties are directed to appear before the Additional Collector, Pakur on 08.02.2022.

¶16

No further notice is required to be issued as both the parties are present before this Court.

¶17

However, the Additional Collector, Pakur, shall secure the attendance of both the parties and shall pass order afresh considering the provision of sub-Section (6-A) of Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 as amended by the State of Bihar on 30.01.1983.

¶18

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur through FAX at once.

¶19

Let photocoy of the LCR be sent down.

¶20

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶21

R.S.

Lakhu Sheikh v. The State Of Jhakrhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhu Sheikh v. The State Of Jhakrhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Golak Bihari Paul Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Asif Zeya And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Rajan Lohar Kamar Vs Small Industries Development B

Jai Deo Ray Vs M/S.Tata Robins Frazer Ltd.

Dewa Singh Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Dhano Oraon And Ors. Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department